For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Sunday, 6 May 2018

Con artist

Evening all,First thing I am going to say is that I don't have permission of the author to copy this comment here, but I hope that in the circumstances he'll be okay with it. If not, I'll remove it.Okay - so thanks to one of my contributors, I was pointed in the direction of this from PeterMac, in response to Textusa's ''End of days" proclamations. This was on the CMOMM forum.

We need to distil out the flabby thinking at the beginning.He never spells out what he thinks they should be prosecuted for

Consider these bits .

The crime happened in Portugal. What crime ?

For it[What crime ?] to be prosecuted outside Portugal, where the crime happened, [What crime ?]and there be no consequences there is only one way for that to happen: Portugal agreeing fully to that.

So, to the question will Portugal accept that the McCanns are prosecuted by the British in Britain? The answer seems to be a clear no. For what crime ?

Sovereignty determines that the McCanns have to be prosecuted in Portugal. For what crime ?

Only if the UK wants to insult Portugal and face the consequences on the international stage for doing so, will the McCanns ever be prosecuted in Britain for what happened in Luz. What DID happen in Luz ?He then throws in a whole page about prosecution in England for crimes committed elsewhereSs. 9 and 10 OAPA 1861 refers ONLY to homicideThe Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”) is talking about War crimes and torture

Unless we believe Madeleine was killed by her parents neither has any relevance to the case.

Portugal has a case of (the Portuguese equivalent of) failing to report a death, failing to produce a body for burial, and possibly another couple of minor administrative things - but without conclusive proof cannot go furtherEngland has a possible case of a Fraud, and a conspiracy to defraud, but without proof that Madeleine is dead and that the parents knew, or reasonably suspected this cannot go further

Now look at this nonsense

In a country’s jurisdiction laws from other countries are not accepted even if the issue in question is the same.

This is simply wrong. The whole point of the EAW is that countries DO accept the laws of others if they have an equivalent crime on their own statute books.The recent case of not extraditing Puigdemont from Germany is a classic. German law specifies that there has to be an element of violence in the crime of sedition or whatever. Spanish law doesn't. The Spanish want him back, but the Germans can find no evidence of violence and so will not extradite him. Which is why the Spanish have changed tack and started to look at Financial crimes. (think Al Capone)

And then he starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England.It is exactly the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video

But in any event it is a red herring (remember that ?) because BritPol would not interview about Portuguese crime, only about English crime

As someone has posted, if the 6,500 words were cut down to bullet points on one side of A4 it would be easier to see the flaws

I have decided to leave the whole piece in, to avoid any accusations of cherry-picking from it. I should also mention that the post was accompanied by this:

Reply from PeterMac (retired Police Superintendent with 30 years experience plus a Law degree):

I am going to say up front that I absolutely do not agree with PeterMac on some issues, but that does not mean that there are not areas of agreement between us, too.What he has said here echoes what I said in my response to Textusa, in particular what I pointed out about an interview under caution. Textusa's claim about the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong. So thank you, PeterMac, for pointing that out.Anyhoo - back to Her Loonyship ......There then occurred the following exchanges:

Procedural rights:#1 - To attend those acts in the proceedings directly concerning him;#2 - To be heard by the court or the investigative judge whenever they must take a decision affecting him personally;#3 - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them;#4 - To choose a defence counsel or ask the court to assign him one;#5 - To have a defence counsel acting on his behalf in every act of the proceedings he participates in and to communicate with him, even in private, when remanded in custody;#6 - To intervene in the inquiry, giving evidence and requesting the investigation he deems necessary;#7 - To be informed of his rights by the judicial or prosecuting authority or by the criminal police body before which he is compelled to appear;#8 - To appeal from unfavourable decisions taken against him as provided by law;#9 - To request legal aid at the social customer services

Procedural duties#1 - Appear before the judge, the Public Prosecution Service or the criminal police bodies whenever required by law and having been duly summoned for that purpose;#2 - To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record;#3 - To provide a statement of identity and residence immediately after being held a defendant;#4 - To submit himself to investigations for the gathering of evidence and, as provided by law, to coercive measures and a guarantee in property, ordered and performed by a competent authority.

Warning – Section 39 of Act no. 34/2004, of July 29, 2004The defendant was informed that when neither choosing a defence counsel, nor requesting legal aid, or in case this legal aid is not granted, he may be liable for the payment of the defence counsel’s fees, as well as for the expenses he incurred with his defence.

In the interview under caution, the caution is:https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-003-2152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

The reader just has to compare both and see if they represent the same.

Not even bothering to analyse the remainder listed, we would simply point duty #2: "To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record".

Only to these is the arguido obliged by law to tell the truth. About all else s/he can lie. And if the arguido says white during the investigative process and then decides to say black in court, it's black that counts and s/he is not accountable for having said white before nor can that white be used as evidence against him/her.

So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?

It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living.

We would like to know if PeterMac’s degree in law is in Portuguese law.

About PeterMac having credibility because he was a policeman, we don’t think alleged weather conditions on May 3, the lack of published holiday photos or unconnected people not seeing Maddie alive is proof of anything.

If that’s what British police officers consider to be compelling evidence in the UK, then it speaks poorly of the people serving in the British police forces. As we don’t believe that to be the case – that of British police considering such flimsy evidence as compelling – we will maintain the respect we have for all police officers serving in the UK.

We have noted that PeterMac doesn’t mention Prof. Hany Farid in his book chapter about the last photo, about which we would welcome the CMOMM forum putting that evidence to a REAL test.

About the weather conditions of May 3 and about which PeterMac is absolutely certain that there was absolutely no possibility whatsoever for a sunny picture to have been taken, in his chapter book about the weather, he places a picture for that day in the Algarve not of a cloudy sky but one of a sky with clouds:http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.pt/2016/08/chapter-15-almost-last-word-on-last.htmlhttp://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-pool-photo.html

Paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who are you going to believe, PeterMac or your own eyes?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM

It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living."

There was no need to be rude to me. I asked a question and you said yourself you had no legal education, but Petermac does. Seems like you want me to assume that what you tell me is true, so who is the con-artist here?

One does not need a degree in science to see with one's own eyes that gravity exists.

One just has to hold a stone, drop it and see it, with one's own eyes, fall.

To say that Textusa shows double standards here would be a massive understatement. She lists the rights and responsibilities of an arguido then demands the reader ''compares both" despite the fact that she hasn't listed the rights of someone interviewed under caution. She then demands that the poster who raised the question provides a link to the answer!I think I can see where she is going with this - she is going to try to pretend that minor differences between the two prove she is right. But those minor differences are not the point. The point is that she claimed that to interview the McCanns would be to forever preclude them facing charges in Portugal, and that was absolute bollocksThis bit made me laugh out loud, though

So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?

It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living.

That, Textusa, is precisely what you do, a fact that was not lost on the anon who asked you the question.For anyone who wants to compare, the rights of a person being questioned in the UK are listed under PACE - see here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdfAnd explained here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014As usual, she has painted herself into a corner, silly cow.

6 comments:

Wikipedia might not always be the best source, but it's always more reliable than Textusa!

"Comparison with common-law administrationsThe status is very similar to that of being "questioned under caution" under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the United Kingdom or being questioned after being read one's "Miranda Rights" in the USA, specifically the right to legal representation, the liberty to refuse to answer questions, and the admissibility in court of statements taken whilst in those statuses."

I'm guessing Textusa's bollocks about being happy to be proven wrong was just that - bollocks.

This doesn't really belong on this thread but I don't know where else to put it.Textusa is claiming that no-one was told about the man seen carrying a child before the 25th May so Totman couldn't have been asked about it by the GNR. I said she was wrong and I posted proof, but she just accused me of being you and must of deleted it.

Can you put it on here?

Mr Amaral mentions it in the questions to be asked to Jez Wilkins

"- Did he meet GERALD and at what time ? - Where was GERALD coming from at this time ?- Exactly where was this meeting with GERALD ? (please obtain confirmation of the exact location on the attached map)- What was the distance of this meeting from GERALD'S apartment ? - Can Jeremy provide a sketch map of the location ? - What did they talk about at this time and for how long ?- When he was talking with GERALD, did any of Gerald's group pass by ? - If so, who ?- When he was talking with GERALD did he see whether anyone passed by carrying a child in the road near the apartment block ?"

And Jez mentions it, so he was asked about it

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.

He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks he may stay in one night'

I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes."

Hi, yes, no worries, I saw what she said. Sorry about that, everybody gets that from her.

You are quite right - the Portuguese police interviewed a number of guests and locals and of course they asked whether they had seen a man carrying a child - that's where the ''egg with hair'' sketch came from, I think.

Actually, it will be interesting to see if she publishes it now, as it proves you were right and she was wrong. If she bins it, it just proves what a liar she is. Either way, it shows she had no intention of publishing a post which corrected her. So much for her claims that she is happy to be corrected :)